First liberals had thrills up their legs at Barack Obama’s sheer awesomeness and now they want to spank Obama for sending thousands of more troops to Afghanistan. It’s getting really sick out there in Obamaland! You can read more below, see photos and watch a video.
On Tuesday evening, with perfect stagecraft er, the backdrop of the the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Barack Obama is expected to finally, after countless dithering and hand wringing, announce that he’ll send up to 35,000 more troops to Afghanistan beginning next year. Unfortunately, this decision doesn’t make many people happy. On the right, it seems woefully small. On the left? Well, they say they want to spank Obama.
Three months ago, General Stanley McChrystal gave Obama three options on winning in Afghanistan: a low-risk plan requiring 80,000 more troops, a medium-risk plan requiring 40,000 more troops, and a high-risk plan requiring 20,000 more troops. Apparently, Obama has finally decided to go between the high-risk and medium-risk plans by sending approximately 35,000 more troops.
To many on the anti-war left, including congressional Democrats, any kind of troop surge is wrong. They argue that the mission in Afghanistan is too expensive and lacks a clear objective.
“I think there will be some disillusionment within his base,” said Paul Kawika Martin, political director for Peace Action, a grassroots organization, who added that thousands of activists are planning to protest following the president’s announcement.
“We’re going to spank him for sending more troops,” he told FoxNews.com, adding that they may also “thank him” if he announces a quick exit strategy.
But even if the anti-war completely rejects Obama’s surge plan, it will surely be nothing like President Bush endured for 8 years. Interestingly, Obama will find himself relying on support of congressional Republicans who utterly reject his domestic agenda (and most of his foreign one as well).
Personally, I have always supported the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be a huge mistake to withdraw in my opinion. But with this latest information on the number of troops to be provided, I would almost rather us pull out and end the war then to go forward like this.
Our military fight (and die) to win. Is this decision by Obama one to win? I think not. General McChrystal, our Commander in Afghanistan, offered Obama a low-risk plan (which meant many more troops) to win the war. Yet, Obama chose to dilute that plan, for the sake of balancing political expediency and the appearance of standing by campaign promises.
Obama promised to resource Afghanistan adequately yet he’s done little to change the basic realities on the ground there. It’s a president’s job to know the cost of war; the troop needs, the local assets, to make decisions and have a plan to go forward, to win.
But Obama didn’t do his job on Afghanistan. We’ve seen the things that have consumed him the last year and they haven’t been our war there – they’ve been appeasement, apologies, and golf. Let’s see, in Tuesday night’s speech, if he decides to lead to victory in Afghanistan, or whether liberals should spank Obama for sending (an inadequate number) of troops to Afghanistan.
You can see photos of Barack Obama below and watch a fun video below from Rush Limbaugh on liberal advisors spanking Obama.
Photos: www.wenn.com; Carrie Devorah
November 30th, 2009 at 12:02 am
lisab said
“the dems voted for the war overwhelmingly and the top congressmen of both parties were thoroughly aware of the situation.”
LOL. In other words, you are saying that the evidence presented that Hussein had WMDs and that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 weren’t lies? Whether the Dems believed it or not is irrelevant (I am not a fan of those of them that voted to invade, whatever political persuasion they are of otherwise); the administration presented it as thoroughly backed by evidence, and we went to war based on what turned out to be lies.
“you were only mislead by the democrats desire to go to war so they could get kerry elected.”
This is conspiracy theory at the highest level. Thanks for the laugh.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:04 am
flyingmonkey,
brian is getting downright uppity …
just last week he came to the realization that obama’s economic policies have been a complete and total failure and have creqated zero jobs while going tremendously in debt
of course his solution to this is still raise taxes and give the money to illegal aliens in order to spur job growth …
but at least he has learned that obama is a complete and total failure
November 30th, 2009 at 12:17 am
you cannot deny bush sold the american people the iraq war and pressured congress into lying prostrate before his will. you cannot deny obama lobbied strongly against the iraq war when he ran for congress in 2002. he called it misguided. there really was no evidence, just “tainted” anecdotes, claims from hidden iraqi disgruntleds, and other “stuff”, but no evidence. sorry. niger? lol. the american people were mislead by your frat boy hero into believe saddam was going to shoot biological missles at them from little modified pickup trucks in the desert. yes, to the continental United States. such malarky!
November 30th, 2009 at 12:22 am
did you not know we have been bombing and landing boots on the ground in somalia and attacking the al queda shabab faction there? this has been ongoing for several years now and you can read about it. I think for the most part obama’s economic policies have been working on the marco scale, but weaker on the mocro scale for mainstreet. they have effectively delt with the uber banking and wallstreet struture as much as it can be and still let them be uber rich. but now they need to parse out programs for joe and jane 6 pack.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:25 am
lisab how can you assume you are not just dreaming a hallucinatory state things that not only never happened, but are not even happening now?
November 30th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Bjorn/Brian
It really doesn’t matter how Bush presented it as the House and Senate intelligence committees had the exact same info. If the congress lie prostrate it was of their own choosing.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Yes lisab, and tonight on another thread he pretty much acknowledged that Barry’s foreign policy is lacking also.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:52 am
The libtards will never admit the surge in Iraq worked…so why try to convince them otherwise? They’re willing to go to their graves believing Bush/Cheney were the devil, when the real devil is before their eyes in Obama/Biden/Clinton.
Please…please libtards…name one accomplishment the three have made that have contributed to the betterment of the American people (not just libs/entitlement pigs) and please…please provide evidence that Bush/Cheney lied about Iraq.
I’m sure we’ll hear crickets soon.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:56 am
“Lying America and allies into a war”
I’ve yet to see anyone prove this.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:04 am
“LOL. In other words, you are saying that the evidence presented that Hussein had WMDs and that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 weren’t lies?”
Obviously you havent learned the difference between contemptuous outright fabricated lies with intent and relaying faulty intelligence.
We went to war in Iraq for the simple reason that after 911 waiting for potential threats to become real was no longer an option.
After the many reasons Saddam gave us to worry the time to wait and see was over.
With or without WMDs when you look back at the incredible amount of factual instances to give us concern one can only see that invading Iraq was rge prudent thing to do.
Many dems from Clinton on down are on record saying Saddam had to go long before WMDs even came into the picture.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:46 am
“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.”
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
“We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
“One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.”
“I have no doubt we’re going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.”
“Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly… all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.”
“But make no mistake — as I said earlier — we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.”
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”
November 30th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Yeah Bjorn, so what ?
All that says is that the intelligence was faulty.
Not that anyone lied intentionally.
Besides that, you’re leading the false presumption that the war was only about WMDs.
From my personal blog;
“The resolution also condemned Iraq’s widespread and arbitrary use of the death penalty and its suppression of freedom of expression.
“On Feb. 5, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell came before the United Nations Security Council and laid out the Bush administration’s case against Iraq. As a hushed chamber listened intently, Secretary Powell detailed a web of evidence against Saddam Hussein’s regime.”
Powell’s argument could be divided into two main tracks. The first centered on the premise that Iraq had to face the penalties for having flouted numerous Security Council resolutions. “Last Nov. 8, this council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote,” the secretary said. “The purpose of that resolution was to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had already been found guilty of material breach of its obligations, stretching back over 16 previous resolutions and 12 years.”
“Iraq has now placed itself in danger of the serious consequences called for in U.N. Resolution 1441. And this body places itself in danger of irrelevance if it allows Iraq to continue to defy its will without responding effectively and immediately.”
While the Security Council has passed a series of resolutions concerning Iraq over the past 12 years, only one explicitly authorized the use of force. Resolution 678, passed on Nov. 29, 1990, authorized member states to “use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.”
April 16 2003.
Saddam was found to be violating oil for food programs by selling the food received in exchange for oil for cash. His country was starving so he could build another mansion/palace.
This was a violation of peace treaties enacted after the first gulf war, it is also an act of war and justification for disbanding the Iraqi leadership.
More Iraqi violations…
found here.
Before the war, Syria was said to be receiving as much as 200,000 b/d of oil through the pipeline, paying as much as $1 billion/year to Iraq, making it the single largest source of revenue for Baghdad outside the UN’s oil-for-aid program.
But the US action put an end to that arrangement, ending Washington’s formerly benign policy towards Syria’s illicit imports of Iraqi oil.
Posted on 11/18/2007 9:15:32 AM PST by Son House
Iraqi Firings: Since 2000, Iraqi forces have fired on U.S. and British pilots 1,600 times. In 2002, Iraqi forces fired on U.S. and British pilots406 times. Since September 18, just hours after Saddam promised to “allow the return of the United Nations inspectors without conditions” and expressed his desire “to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction,”
1. Elected Democrats like Reid and Pelosi have no loyalty to the Current Military Personal who are in harms way, or they would make sure they have funding no matter what.
2. President Clinton had little loyalty to the Military, or Iraqi forces firing on U.S. Pilots would not have continued into the 2000.
Revisiting these historical facts should drive home the point that Saddam was in violation of the terms under which we spared him after liberating Kuwait — with or without WMDS and with our without ties to Al Qaeda.
Clinton would have been well justified to invade Iraq at just about any time during his second term — problem is Clinton lacked the courage to do what really needed to be done (and instead attacked Yugoslavia.)
No-Fly Zones, the Iraqi Violations.
Operation Northern Watch enforces the no-fly zone north of the 36th parallel in Iraq and monitors Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council resolutions 678, 687, and 688. The United States and the United Kingdom provide about 45 aircraft and more than 1,400 personnel to support the operation.
Operation Southern Watch enforces the no-fly zone south of the 33rd parallel in Iraq and monitors compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 687, 688, and 949. The United States and the United Kingdom provide about 150 aircraft and 6,000 forces to support the operation.
All of the above were acts of war and aggression against the U.S.
Not even mentioning the thousands og human rights violations taking place on a daily basis.
All were violations of peace treaties enacted after the first gulf war/Kuwait invasion.
George W. Bush never claimed to have been to Iraq. Rather, both he and Tony Blair deferred to intelligence reports and, at the same time, complained that their sources were limited by the fact that Saddam would not allow inspections under the agreements that ended the Gulf War; nor would he respect numerous UN mandates to allow unrestricted monitoring.
Though rare, there are some in the world who allege that Bush knew the reports were wrong (in some mysterious fashion), but went to war under false pretenses anyway. This would certainly qualify as a lie, but it also defies common sense and probably speaks to the ignorance, delusion, or dishonesty of the person making such an assertion.
Saddam was also paying Palestinian suicide bombers families $25,000 ea. to go into Afghanistan and blow up Americans, this was most definitely an act of war.
Saddam Pays 25K for Palestinian Bombers
Tuesday, March 26, 2002
By Ken Layne
Saddam Hussein is paying $25,000 to the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers — a $15,000 raise much welcomed by the bombers’ families. In Tulkarm, one of the poorest towns on the West Bank, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council handed out the checks from Saddam. The payments have been made for at least two years, but the amount has suddenly jumped up by $15,000 — a bonus for the families of martyrs, to reward those taking part in the escalating war against Israel. Paul McGeough, reporting from the West Bank, was the only foreign correspondent in the hall Monday night when a Palestinian official handed out the checks. McGeough’s story in today’s Sydney Morning Herald describes a very hellish twist on the Academy Awards: The men at the top table then opened Saddam’s checkbook and, as the names of 47 martyrs were called, family representatives went up to sign for checks written in U.S. dollars. (Story continues , click on the link )Below are some more obtrusive notes that never seem to hit the mainstream medis. Written in Dec 2006. Does anyone recall seeing this on your evening news ? But I’m sure you got a good shot of all the mourning mothers screaming over the body of their son that was killed by some insurgent, and I’ll bet you’ve seen your share of crying babies on Baghdad sidewalks.
Try again Bjorn
November 30th, 2009 at 11:11 am
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
Most of these countries obtained much the same data giving the appearnce that Saddam had WMDs.
These portfolios contained the points in Bushs case to fo to war.
Unless you or anyone can prove that Bush intentionally had a hand in fabricating misleading intelligence you’ll continue to appear as no better than those who say 911 was an inside job or Obama is not a US citizen.
Only the most entrenched and derainged leftist still continue to try and propogate this bullsht that Bush lied to go to war.
Common sense and a cursory tour of the facts will lead anyone to discover that had Bushs objective been to go to war for any ulterior motives he didnt have to lie.
There were still many viable and justifiable legal reasons for us to invade Iraq.
However, Saddams actions and his constant jerking off of the inspectors left many with no reason but to suspect he was hiding something.
We had the warants to search.
Saddam resisted and violated those warrants.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Obama is a pathetic excuse for a “Commander in Chief ”
The rules of engagement that he has for Afghanistan protect Afghanistan civilians at the cost of putting our troops in much greater jeopardy.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:17 am
I believe that he waited for months to make a decision on Afghanistan for political reasons.
Politics should NEVER come before the lives of our brave warriors !
November 30th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Yeah Tim.
Any fool knows that Afghanistan is Obamas big trading tool on healthcare votes etc…
November 30th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Politics should NEVER come before the lives of our brave warriors !
Agreed. Unfortunately I’m not sure there’s ever been a president who actually acted that way. Obama is far from the first to put body counts in the same category as polling numbers.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Politics are always a component of these decisions. Some presidents more often than others allows this to happen.
Once the idea of a surge was floated it took Bush little more than 3 weeks to make his decision.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Well, as I’ve said before, I think making the right decision is a whole lot more important than making a decision quickly. Deciding quickly isn’t worth much if the decisions are counterproductive crap.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
This quote by Bush himself is not just relaying what later turned out to be faulty intelligence, but are downright lies:
“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.”
“We found them,” not “we have intelligence that two mobile labs might have been identified.”
“leaves no doubt” and “we know”. Lies lies lies.
[I'm out. CHICKEN!!!!]
November 30th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Bjorn.
You need to re study the English language and perform some cognitive thought process.
If these trailers were found after the war began then how could they be used as lies to make the case to go to war ?
Think about that for a second, or however long it takes you my friend.
“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.”
““We found them,” not “we have intelligence that two mobile labs might have been identified.”
That a a pretty lame attempt at distorting simple English.
They simply were under the impression that these labs were capable of producing chemical weapons. Not two days later they and everyone knew this was not the case since no trace pathogens were found.
The fact is that these trailers were still capable of producing such weapons which would lead anyone to believe thats what they could be for.
Its a fact that Saddam had used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people.
It is also known that in the 80s he pursued a biological and nuclear weapons program.
It was not a malicious lie intended to make the case for war.
It was a statement of belief.
Learn the difference.
Had anyone tried to cover up what was later revealed to be weather ballon factories you might have a decent argument.
But you dont.
regardless.
Your statement was saying that WMDs was the only reason Bush went to war.
Bjorn;
“and we went to war based on what turned out to be lies.”
I proved to you this was not true per transcripts directly from the house floor.
We went to war based on many many truths to where if you omitted the WMDs we still had justifiable and legal reason to go in.
Logic (yeah, logic) would dictate to anyone with a brain that Bush didnt need lies to go to war.
But, just for the hell of it check this out.
On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report concluded that, “ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq
“The report found that “The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but there is the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability.” It also concluded that there was a possible intent to restart all banned weapons programs as soon as multilateral sanctions against it had been dropped, with Hussein pursuing WMD proliferation in the future: “There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial, body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD after sanctions were lifted…” No senior Iraqi official interviewed by the ISG believed that Saddam had forsaken WMD forever.”
“After he was captured by U.S. forces in Baghdad in 2003, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, who ran Saddam’s nuclear centrifuge program until 1997, handed over blueprints for a nuclear centrifuge along with some actual centrifuge components, stored at his home – buried in the front yard ”
“On October 3, 2003, the world digests David Kay’s Iraq Survey Group report that finds no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, although it states the government intended to develop more weapons with additional capabilities. Weapons inspectors in Iraq do find some “biological laboratories” and a collection of “reference strains”, including a strain of botulinum bacteria, “ought to have been declared to the UN.” Kay testifies that Iraq had not fully complied with UN inspections. In some cases, equipment and materials subject to UN monitoring had been kept hidden from UN inspectors. “So there was a WMD program. It was going ahead. It was rudimentary in many areas”
“In June 2004, the United States removed 2 tons of low-enriched uranium from Iraq, sufficient raw material for a single nuclear weapon”
November 30th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
“I think for the most part obama’s economic policies have been working on the marco scale, but weaker on the mocro scale for mainstreet.” brian
in other words …
obama wasted all our tax money
went more in debt in one year than bush spent on two wars in eight years
and created zero jobs for the usa but lots of jobs for people in other countries that are now more competitive because they have lower taxes and less government regulations
while simultaneously sending our country into a depression
November 30th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
i suppose you can call helping our competitors and also rogue nations like iran and north korea
as being successful in a macro way
he has helped iran a lot for example
November 30th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
“Deciding quickly isn’t worth much if the decisions are counterproductive crap.”
Yeah well when you already said you have a stragtegy and your adminstration is suffering the highest casualty rate ever its time to get busy and send something in until you at least have a more definate plan. But no !
The moron just sat on his hands and did nothing, not even sending in reinforcements until he did have a more viable plan.
How could sending in some assitance to those getting slaughtered be counterproductive ?
November 30th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
How could sending in some assitance to those getting slaughtered be counterproductive ?
To be clear, I never said that; I wasn’t talking about any specific decision there, just about the supposed general merits of being a “quick decision maker”. And you’re right, it does no good to sit on one’s thumbs indefinitely.
I just think sometimes the right overvalues the ability to make a decision quickly, and undervalues the ability to make the correct decision. The Iraq War is a pretty good example of the problems that can arise from that “act now, think later” mentality.